Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ...
2
3
4
5
6
... LastLast
  1. #61
    Elemental Lord Spl4sh3r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    8,502
    It's not the area of effect spells that are getting changed. It is cleaving abilities. For example it is stupid to think that Multishot from Hunters can hit everything. How many arrows do you think is possible to shoot at the same time from the same bow? That is why it only has a limit of 5, compared to shooting quickly with Barrage having a limit of 8. If you then compare it to Volley, it would have no limit since it rains arrow in an area. Though haven't played retail for a while so can't even remember if Volley exist there atm.

  2. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by Low Hanging Fruit View Post
    In the end it will all end up the same. The whole thing will be gamed in some fashion and those with more higher capped AOE items will be wanted and those with less will be ditched. Then the perfect pull number will come up so 2 packs instead of 3? Ok.. same old thing though.. pull that and use your reduced AOE numbers like crazy again. GG.
    ^ This person gets it. Attempting to change things in this manner is just going to result in some different meta where someone else is shunned instead. Is that really better? Someone is still qqing because they don't get brought to content. Same way someone is currently qqing because they don't get brought to content.

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by BeepBoo View Post
    Isn't this the same as saying "in an ideal world"? What you're saying is you like niche design. Which also says you like team stacking... which is exactly what is happening right now....


    No.. see why above.
    so situations a.) when all perform the same in all areas, b.) different classes perform better in different situations and c.) 1-2 classes overperform everyone else in pretty much all situations (as is the case now) is the same to you?
    the level of mental gymnastic to come up with that conclusion is beyond my comprehension... i give up

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Lolites View Post
    so situations a.) when all perform the same in all areas, b.) different classes perform better in different situations and c.) 1-2 classes overperform everyone else in pretty much all situations (as is the case now) is the same to you?
    the level of mental gymnastic to come up with that conclusion is beyond my comprehension... i give up
    B and C are effectively the same from a "not one of the FOTM specs" user standpoint. Getting shunned from something you want to do is getting shunned from something you want to do. So long as SOMEONE is getting shunned, it's all the same.

    A is the only one where you don't get the same result as B & C.

    How are b/c the same?
    In C, if you're not those 1-2 classes, you're shunned.
    In B, it's just a different level of granularity of who is best when. Right now, it might be that 1-2 classes are best for m+, 1-2 classes are best for raids, 1-2 classes are best for arena. In B, it might be that 1-2 classes are best for <dungeon x>. Woooh. Big deal. So now instead of being shunned from all 12 dungeons, I'm only shunned from 2/12. Wow! So much better! Not.

    No, the idea is no classes should be shunned from any content.

  5. #65
    High Overlord tearsofflame's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    139
    Quote Originally Posted by Dystemper View Post
    Its telling me they plan on having the zones be mob heavy and want to slow us down even more
    Exactly. That's why they need to remove the limit. The change makes no sense. Why fix something that isn't broken....

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by BeepBoo View Post
    ^ This person gets it. Attempting to change things in this manner is just going to result in some different meta where someone else is shunned instead. Is that really better? Someone is still qqing because they don't get brought to content. Same way someone is currently qqing because they don't get brought to content.
    Exactly. Thanks for understanding the bigger picture

  6. #66
    It could be a good change, but they need to handle it correctly. Currently it doesn't look like they are, but there's still time to change(supposedly).
    Intshuffle
    <Arctic Avengers>
    Kazzak-EU

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Gatto View Post
    Not sure yet.
    Still trying to figure out the reason behind this change.

    I see they are, unfortunately, trying to somehow emulate wow classic in some ways, and I have to say that this worries me.
    The reasoning is both obvious and stated by blizzard. And why wouldn't they emulate a 15 year old game that's more popular than their current retail version?

  8. #68
    I think I would be fine with it as long as the cap doesn't apply to enemies 10+ levels lower than you.

  9. #69
    Will be fun pulling every pack separately because we literally can't hit the second pack with anything

  10. #70
    Warchief Duravian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    San Franpsycho, CA
    Posts
    2,224
    I hate the limit. It may serve a numbers use but it feels simply un-fun. Like there are so many ways they could simply nerf the numbers on AoE abilities but instead they're simply kicking AoE in the knee and handicapping you the player. It also raises weird things like how I, as an Outlaw Rogue, will be able to control which mobs I want getting hit by Blade Flurry now. I'd rather just hit everything in close proximity (which is more FUN; and seeing as how this is a game, that should be the #1 consideration), now I will somehow have to prioritize moving around awkwardly trying to focus the 4 mobs I want included in Blade Flurry hits. It seems like a bad solution to what I don't even consider a problem. I love how AoE works rn.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by ZazuuPriest View Post
    The reasoning is both obvious and stated by blizzard. And why wouldn't they emulate a 15 year old game that's more popular than their current retail version?
    Because retail isn't classic anymore? And people actually like that?? How is this hard to comprehend for you? Classic exists for players that... enjoy Classic-esque gameplay.
    It's pronounced "Dur-av-ian."

  11. #71
    I'm a warrior. We haven't had access to endless cleave off a cooldown virtually ever, so it doesn't really affect me.

  12. #72
    Warchief Duravian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    San Franpsycho, CA
    Posts
    2,224
    Quote Originally Posted by Eninya View Post
    I'm a warrior. We haven't had access to endless cleave off a cooldown virtually ever, so it doesn't really affect me.
    You've got whirlwind and Bladestorm you're cruisin bro
    It's pronounced "Dur-av-ian."

  13. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by Fullmetal89 View Post
    It's just another way of slowing the game down arbitrarily. Nobody wants to play slow paced dungeon/raids anymore. It's either that or they realize the game's engine can't handle processing so many spell effects and number crunching for raid wide AoE. Either way, it feels like another QoL nerf. Maybe I'm wrong and it will be good for the long-term "health" of the game but I'm far too jaded and cynical about Blizzard these days to believe otherwise.
    I figured it has less to do with raids and more to do with people butthurt about a second expansion of three melee DPS, a druid healer, and the FOTM tank pulling half a dungeon at once in high keys.

  14. #74
    My thought is that I am not going to cry over the fact that only 8 out of the 9 enemies in the middle of my big explodey move got hit, nor am I going to particularly miss that rare big-pp damage spike that happens when you can start an instance with heavy AoE, or that subtle little rise in my meter when I'm able to get off heavy AoE in the middle of the instance when my average DPS gets too level and total damage done ends up getting too high for me to really care.

    I will more than likely not notice this AoE cap in any significant way, and I am not going to put in the stupid amount of effort that it would take to actively notice it. I don't participate in high keys, but if this change is meant to keep certain classes from trivializing M+, like I've read around that it's intended to do, that's totally fine. If such a balance change focused on M+ had a significant effect on my own experience as a player, it would be a different story.

    But I don't think it will. So I don't give a shit.

  15. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by ZazuuPriest View Post
    The reasoning is both obvious and stated by blizzard. And why wouldn't they emulate a 15 year old game that's more popular than their current retail version?
    What blizzard tells us is the reason for something, and what the REAL reason for that something is... are very different. This is true for every corporation and government. They lie like a sidewalk. Some are just better than others at hiding it.

    Blizzard is no different.

  16. #76
    I think it's a good thing providing classes get some form of both cleave and aoe.
    Making cleave more relevent is a good thing, this is attempting to give us 3 ways to DPS.
    Should improved the thought drive behind each situation, now you see a multi mob situation and AoE, in SL we'll have to decide whether to cleave or aoe.
    Some classes have that already so it's an attempt to put classes on par.

    Not a bad thing, but blizzard will need to be adaptive during the alpha to get the class balance so that some classes don't end up being shafted.

  17. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by BeepBoo View Post
    ^ This person gets it. Attempting to change things in this manner is just going to result in some different meta where someone else is shunned instead. Is that really better? Someone is still qqing because they don't get brought to content. Same way someone is currently qqing because they don't get brought to content.
    There is always going to be a meta though. The difference is the delta between what's in the meta, and what isn't. If this change reduces that difference, so that while a meta exists, having a class from outside of it is still perfectly viable, then the change is a good one. It will take at least one tuning pass to have any idea of that though.

  18. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by jellmoo View Post
    There is always going to be a meta though. The difference is the delta between what's in the meta, and what isn't. If this change reduces that difference, so that while a meta exists, having a class from outside of it is still perfectly viable, then the change is a good one. It will take at least one tuning pass to have any idea of that though.
    What in the world makes you think some classes having utter garbage AOE due to capped potential will result in a lesser delta than what we currently have, though? I'd have faith if they just left it the fuck alone and did some actual numbers tuning like they always say they're going to (one half-assed pass isn't enough, and never will be... looking at you corruptions). They literally never iterate enough for the delta to be noticeably different. This just another in a long line of "monkey throwing darts at a dart board" design choices where they hope "maybe this fixes it! This seems interesting and new, right!?" that will never pan out. THey need to stop with this crap and just do numbers tuning, while removing all extraneous (ap, covenets, etc) systems. Get the base game right first, then introduce new stuff once you prove that out, then tune that new stuff.

  19. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by Duravian View Post
    You've got whirlwind and Bladestorm you're cruisin bro
    Whirlwind is weak as balls and its primary functions are tied directly to other things, and Bladestorm is a cooldown.

  20. #80
    It's good. Aoe has been king for too long.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •